ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.05.2012 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siwana has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial court. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction and mesne profit with the averments that house situated at village Samdari was owned by him, which was let out by him to his brother on 01.10.2001 on rent @ Rs. 800/- per month. It was alleged that the rent was not paid since beginning and ultimately the respondent issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('T.P. Act') terminating the tenancy. Based on the said averments, the possession of the suit property along with mesne profit was sought. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement claiming himself to be the owner of the property and denying that the property was ever let out by the plaintiff to him. 4. The trial court framed six issues and after evidence was led by the parties came to the conclusion, based on the contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff and his mother, that the property was never let out to the defendant. The notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was held to be against the law and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession or mesne profit. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed first appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and decree first reversed the findings on issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and though did not reverse the finding on issue No.4, but came to the conclusion that the same was not properly decided. Finding on issue No.4A was also reversed. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed first appeal. 6. The appellate court after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and decree first reversed the findings on issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and though did not reverse the finding on issue No.4, but came to the conclusion that the same was not properly decided. Finding on issue No.4A was also reversed. Thereafter, the appellate court remanded back the matter by observing as under:- ^^rFkk lkFk gh bl izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh voyksduh; gS fd izR;FkhZ@izfroknh us fdjk;klqnk ifjlj vius tokc ds en ua0 1 esa oknh dk u gksdj Lo;a izfroknh ds LokfeRo dk dCtklqnk gksuk crk;k gS vkSj tokcnkos ds en la0 3 esa Hkh Li"V :i ls edku izfroknh dk Lo;a dk gksuk crk;k gS] tcfd vihykFkhZ@oknh us edku Lo;a dk gksus dk dFku fd;k gS bl ckcr iV~Vk Hkh is'k fd;k gS ,sls esa bl ckcr Hkh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us edku ds LokfeRo ckcr rFkk fdjk;slqnk ifjlj izfroknh@izR;FkhZ Lo;a dk gS rFkk lkFk gh tc izR;FkhZ@izfroknh us fdjk;snkjh i{kdkjku ds chp esa LFkkfir u gks o ifjlj Lo;a ds LokfeRo o dCts dk gksus dss vk/kkj ij mldh izfrj{kk lekIr dh tkuh pkfg, ;k ugha bl ckcr Hkh mDr rF;ksa dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, i`Fkd ls fook|d fojfpr dj izdj.k dk fof/k vuqlkj xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fofu'p; fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ysfdu ,slk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ugha fd;k gS] ,sls esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-12-2005 vkiLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks mDr mYysf[kr fcUnqvksa ij i`Fkd ls fopkj dj i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; ds xq.koxq.k ds vk/kkj ij foospu o fo'ys"k.k djrs gq, viuk fofu'p; ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd mDr foospukuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk bl ckcr ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@izfroknh ds rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fook|d la0 1 o 2 dk fofu'p; vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ fy[kekjke o mldh ekrk ih0M0&2 xojhnsoh ds c;kuksa ij fdjk;s ij edku nsus dh rkjh[k esa fojks/kkHkkl gksus ds vk/kkj ij r; fd;k Fkk tks fd ,d rduhdh fcUnq gS vkSj i{kdkjksa ds fof/kd vf/kdkjksa dk fofu'p; dsoy rduhdh vk/kkj ij vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izdj.k ij vk;h iwjh lk{; dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ,slk fofu'p; fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ,sls esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-12-2005 vikLr fd;k tkdj izdj.k fof/k vuqlkj fuLrkj.k fd, tkus gsrq i=koyh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court was not justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court and remanding back the matter to the trial court. It was submitted that the appellate court in a most cursory manner has reversed the well reasoned findings of the trial court and has without following the procedure as prescribed under Order 41, Rule 23A remanded back the matter without any reason. It was submitted that the so called issues indicated in the impugned judgment are also not clear and, therefore, the judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that once it is proved that the property is owned by respondent, the other issues regarding the defendant being tenant, would naturally get settled and, therefore, the appellate court was justified in remanding back the matter and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. A perusal of the record indicates that the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be owner of the property in question; alleging the defendant, his real brother, as tenant of the property and claimed that the same was let out to the defendant on 01.10.2001 for a rent of Rs. 800/- per month. It was also claimed that no rent was paid since beginning and that tenancy was terminated by issuing notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and based on the said averments possession of the suit property along with rent/mesne profit was claimed. The suit averments were denied by the defendant and the trial court based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove landlord tenant relationship between the parties based on the contradictions in the statements of two witnesses i.e. plaintiff himself and his mother regarding the point of time when the property was allegedly let out. The notice was also found to be not in consonance with provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act and ultimately the suit was dismissed. 11. The notice was also found to be not in consonance with provisions of Section 106 of the T.P. Act and ultimately the suit was dismissed. 11. The appellate court from perusal of the order and the directions, which have been issued, was apparently too much obsessed with the fact that the Patta of the property in question stood in the name of the plaintiff. It is settled that in a suit based on landlord tenant relationship, between the parties, the factum of ownership is alien, and the party alleging landlord tenant relationship, on the same being disputed by the defendant, has to prove the landlord tenant relationship and consequences follow. 12. While remanding the matter the appellate court has specifically indicated that the trial court should have decided the issue of title and has further made observations that the defence of the defendant should have been struck off and issue, in this regard, should have been framed. The said direction given by the appellate court to the trial court to frame issues and then decide the said aspects, appears to be wholly beyond the scope of the nature of the suit, which was filed. The appellate court, could not have directed framing of the issue pertaining to the title and further the issue of striking out the defence does not arise in a case of present nature. However, no indication as to what was meant by the appellate court when it ordered for framing an issue regarding striking out the defence has been indicated. Further, even counsel for the respondent has not been able to support the remand on the said aspect. 13. So far as the reversal of the findings on issues is concerned, the appellate court had reversed the findings on almost all issues, thereafter based on so called additional issues, again a direction has been given to re-decide the matter. Once the findings as aforesaid, reversing the finding given by the trial court have been recorded by the appellate court, there was no reason for remanding back the matter in any case. 14. However, a bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the appellate court while reversing the findings on all the issues indicates that the same has been done in a most cursory manner without dealing with the reasons recorded by the trial court. 15. 14. However, a bare perusal of the reasons recorded by the appellate court while reversing the findings on all the issues indicates that the same has been done in a most cursory manner without dealing with the reasons recorded by the trial court. 15. In view of the above, the appellate court has failed to follow the provisions of Order 41, Rule 23A CPC while remanding the matter and apparently the issues on which the matter has been remanded back does not arise in the present case, therefore, the judgment impugned cannot be sustained. 16. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 19.05.2012 passed by the appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate court to rehear and decide the appeal afresh. The appellate court would not be affected by the fact that its earlier judgment has been reversed by this Court. The parties shall appear before the District Judge, Balotra on 24.03.2017. The record be sent back immediately.